[Wouter Verhelst] > Whether we should recommend using static libraries is another matter > entirely; indeed performance does go down a teeny weeny bit when using > shared libraries, but the difference shouldn't be *that* large; if it > is, that probably means they're using a twisty maze of function calls, > all alike, that they probably shouldn't be doing.
As I understand it, the performance drawbacks of a shared library are: 1) The PIC code and its use of a GOT. Given that we're talking about a PIC static library, this is not relevant. 2) Runtime linking. This is overhead at application startup time. Something that embeds an SQL engine should not, I think, start up too frequently. Am I wrong? So what is the real performance advantage of this -fPIC static library? To me it looks like a different, less desirable, way to implement the 'prelink' optimization. -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
